Front Page
NMJ Search
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House

Community Development Block Grants, which duplicates other federal housing and economic development programs, are often diverted to pork projects, including a pet-shampoo company.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Ten Places to Cut Waste as
Congress Considers a Budget

Romina Boccia, The Heritage Foundation
Congress is considering an omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2014, and it's chock-full of inappropriate and wasteful spending. Lawmakers will have only a few days to read the mammoth bill before they are pressed to approve it.

But this bill deserves close scrutiny. Just because Congress reached an agreement in December to exceed the 2014 sequestration spending caps by $45 billion doesn't mean lawmakers are required to spend every single penny and keep throwing good money at bad government programs.

Goodness knows, there's lots of fat that could and should be trimmed from this bill. For starters, here is a list of 10 programs Congress should eliminate this year -- and save more than $10 billion annually:

▪ The Community Development Block Grant program, which duplicates other federal housing and economic development programs. What's worse, the grants often are diverted to pork projects, including a pet-shampoo company.

▪ Competitive grants under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Niche competitive grant programs under the No Child Left Behind law have multiplied over the decades as federal government intervention into education grows. The programs, many of them duplicative and ineffective, include art education programs, Ready-to-Learn Television and Smaller Learning Communities.

▪ Job Corps savings. This expensive residential job training program has an abysmal record. Numerous studies have found Job Corps to be ineffective at substantially increasing participants' wages and moving them into full-time employment.

▪ Food for Peace Title II grants. The largest part of the federal food aid budget is found in the Department of Agriculture. These grants are inefficient and unnecessarily costly, requiring that food be purchased in the US and then shipped across oceans in US-flagged vessels. Congress should eliminate the purchase and shipping restrictions and request that USAID support the program with existing development funding.

▪ The Transportation Alternatives Program, which funds bicycle paths, sidewalks, nature paths, community preservation and landscaping. There is no reason for the federal government to pick up the tab for such purely local projects.

▪ The Conservation Technical Assistance program. The Natural Resources Conservation Service runs this costly program to help landowners maintain private property, enhance recreational opportunities for landowners and improve the aesthetic character of private land. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize advice on how private landowners can best use their land or improve its appearance.

▪ The Essential Air Service program. Federal taxpayers are subsidizing commercial flights in rural communities through this program. Any subsidies should come from the local or state governments that are benefiting from the service.

▪ The Advanced Manufacturing Program. This corporate welfare program subsidizes activities leading to greater energy efficiency, with the stated goal of helping American manufacturers compete globally. Manufacturers are well aware that energy represents a significant input cost and already have sufficient incentives to lower costs and gain competitive advantages.

▪ The Rural Business Program Account, which deals with business and industry-guaranteed loans and rural business enterprise grants. The federal government should not play venture capitalist with taxpayer money. Private capital will find its way to worthy rural investments.

▪ Funding for the UN Population Fund. The fund faces persistent accusations that it has been complicit in China's coercive one-child policy, often enforced through forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

Sequestration, the automatic spending cuts Congress agreed to in 2011, succeeded in reducing discretionary spending last year. What would be even better than temporary across-the-board spending reductions is for Congress to eliminate bad federal programs permanently. Doing so would save American taxpayers money and reduce the size and scope of the federal government -- saving even more money down the road and reducing federal intervention in local government and market functions.

Romina Boccia is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Refer to original article for related links and important documentation.

target="_blank"READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 01/15/2014

The informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by is copyrighted. supports and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Media © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server